Trump's border wall is not worth taking government hostage

Desert Sage column

Buy Photo

A sign at the entrance to the Dripping Springs Natural Area in New Mexico says it is closed because of the partial government shutdown on Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2019.(Photo: Blake Gumprecht/Sun-News)Buy Photo

Under what circumstances would it be ethically sound for a president to refuse to sign appropriations to keep the federal government operating?

Imagine a Democratic president demanding $5 billion to begin construction of massive solar arrays and transmission lines, to build a post-petroleum economy. Imagine a president declaring no appropriations would be signed without it.

While I might be receptive to that policy objective, I could not ethically support the threat of a shutdown to achieve it.

As the 116th Congress is sworn in, 25 percent of the federal government has been shut down since Dec. 22, with 800,000 workers either temporarily laid off (furloughed) or working without pay until government is funded again. Federal support for nutritional assistance from SNAP and WIC remains unfunded, and will continue to operate only until state agencies run out of funds. The Small Business Administration cannot process loans. Important scientific research has halted, and widespread environmental and economic damage compounds daily.

Federal shutdowns, even partial ones, are hurricanes. For Congress or a president to inflict this kind of damage on purpose, there must be a compelling ethical reason. In the present case, President Trump’s stated purpose is to secure $5 billion in funding for a southern border wall.

The president received bipartisan legislation in December that would have funded government into February. The wall was not funded, as the policy did not have sufficient congressional support. Should not the president have signed the appropriation and continued to make the case for his policy?

Although he had stated, on camera, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security,” he has subsequently sought to blame the Democrats for the shutdown in hopes of forcing concessions on his wall.

Should they compromise, perhaps offering a billion dollars or so for a wall, maybe rebrand it as a “fence” or a “not-wall” or a really cool “security art installation?”

There may be a case for negotiating in some hostage situations, depending on who you are dealing with, while some say never ever. In any case, this is not an isolated hostage crisis. The government shutdown is becoming a conventional political tactic.

A history of federal shutdowns

This is a comparatively new phenomenon. The first federal shutdown took place in 1980, after U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion that the Antideficiency Act forbade agencies from operating without appropriations by Congress.

Until 1995, federal shutdowns were costly but brief, lasting as little as a business day or weekend. The era of committed budget brinkmanship and weaponized shutdowns began in earnest with Speaker Newt Gingrich during the presidency of Bill Clinton. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the Republican-dominated Congress threatened shutdowns repeatedly over various policy objectives that did not have sufficient support. A 16-day shutdown ensued in 2013 because Congress could not agree on a continuing resolution.

President Obama argued that year that this form of hostage-taking, this refusal to govern and engage in good-faith negotiation over policy objectives, knowingly inflicting a disaster, was a tactic we normalize at the republic’s peril.

It is extremely difficult to make a sound policy case for the wall, much less demonstrate a moral imperative worth shutting down the government. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated the actual cost of a border wall at $21.6 billion, and that only for construction. Once up, it would do little to deter unauthorized crossings or drug smuggling. It cannot resolve a crisis that has been exaggerated and demagogued. It would, however, inflict heavy ecological damage.

This policy does not warrant compromise. It is time for governance. The president should sign appropriations and, if he wishes, continue making a case for his stupid wall.